This seems reasonable to me. Michael Hammer
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:15 PM Andrew Newton (andy) <a...@hxr.us> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks to all who participated in the discussion prompted by Barry > regarding the next steps for the failure reporting document. > > Barry laid out three options: 1) complete failed reporting and request AD > sponsorship, 2) abandon the work and fall back to the older DMARC spec for > reference, or 3) abandon the work and remove all references to failure > reporting. > > In my review of the discussions there were many in favor of both option 1 > and option 3. > > I would like to offer a modification to both of these options, which is to > charter a very narrowly focused working group to do one or the other. That > is, the working group would have a very narrow window of time to finish and > send to the IESG a DMARC failure reports specification or it will change > the current DMARC draft to remove references to the failure reports. > > Murray has helpfully put together a proposed charter for such a working > group, which you may find below. Please understand that this charter must > be approved by the IETF. > > I would appreciate responses no later than 11 April. > > -andy, ART AD > > === BEGIN PROPOSED CHARTER === > > DMARC Charter [DRAFT] > > The DMARC working group was chartered in 2014 to produce a Standards Track > revision to DMARC (RFC 7489), originally published via the Independent > Submissions stream. The revision to the original document, along with one > of two reporting documents, was approved by the IESG in 2025, and the > working group closed shortly thereafter. > > This closure left behind a second reporting document which, incomplete, > reverted to being an individual submission. There is little evidence of > uptake of this work in industry. However, it was overlooked that the base > document produced by the working group includes normative references to > this document, an artifact of the original DMARC RFC. This issue needs to > be resolved before the revised base document can proceed to publication. > There now appears to be consensus to recharter in order to “un-abandon” the > dangling document and complete the work. > > This instance of the DMARC working group is chartered for the sole purpose > of completing the “failure reporting” document and sending it to the IESG > for publication as a Standards Track item, or removing failure reporting > from DMARC in its entirety. This will complete the document cluster and > allow the base document to proceed. The working group will adopt no other > documents or work items. However, the working group may reclaim the base > document from the RFC Editor only if it finds that edits are required to > complete this charter item, and then may alter it only to the extent > necessary to meet this goal. The responsible Area Director will have > discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and IESG loop is needed to > review those limited modifications. > > The working group will submit the failure reporting document to the IESG > no later than six months from formation of the working group. If it fails > to meet this deadline, it will abandon that objective and instead begin the > work of removing all references from the base document to the failure > reporting document, and the latter will be permanently abandoned. > > === END === > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
